Those who ignore history are bound to repeat the same mistakes…
On 7 November 2017, the administration of the US President issued a statement with the lurid title “National Day of Victims of Communism”. However, it was unclear whether the “national day” was American or Russian. Nevertheless, it was very significant that the White House couldn’t ignore the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, which the entire planet observed over the past few days. At the same time, it seems that American politicians still have a weak knowledge of history and geography. In Washington, they live in an artificial world, in which America represents everything good, and Russia is the embodiment of evil.
Outrageous unsubstantiated allegations and outright lies fill this document. Full of the baleful spirit of the Cold War, the White House talked about “the dark decades of oppressive communism, a political philosophy incompatible with freedom, prosperity, and respect for human life”. Meanwhile, even Russia’s enemies recognise that the seven decades…
View original post 599 more words
During the Age of Trump, Year One, a single word has emerged to capture the essence of the prevailing cultural mood: resistance. Words matter, and the prominence of this particular term illuminates the moment in which we find ourselves.
All presidents, regardless of party or program, face criticism and opposition.Citizens disinclined to support that program protest. Marching, chanting, waving placards, and generally raising a ruckus in front of any available camera, they express dissent. In normal times, such activism testifies to the health of democracy.
Yet these are not normal times. In the eyes of Trump’s opponents, his elevation to the pinnacle of American politics constitutes a frontal assault on values that until quite recently appeared fixed and unassailable. In such distressing circumstances, mere criticism, opposition, protest, and dissent will not suffice. By their own lights, anti-Trump forces are fending off the apocalypse. As in November 1860 so too in November 2016, the outcome of a presidential election has placed at risk a way of life.
The very word resistance conjures up memories of the brave souls who during World War II opposed the Nazi occupation of their homelands, with the French maquis the best known example. It carries with it an unmistakable whiff of gunpowder. After resistance comes revolution.
Simply put, Trump’s most ardent opponents see him as an existential threat, with the clock ticking. Thus the stakes could hardly be higher. Richard Parker of Harvard has conjured what he calls Resistance School, which in three months has signed up some 30,000 anti-Trump resistors from 49 states and 33 countries. “It is our attempt to begin the long slow process of recovering and rebuilding our democracy,” says Parker. Another group styling itself the DJT Resistance declares that Trump represents “Hatred, Bigotry, Xenophobia, Sexism, Racism, and Greed.”
This is not language suggesting the possibility of dialogue or compromise. Indeed, in such quarters references to incipient fascism have become commonplace. Comparisons between Trump and Hitler abound. “It takes willful blindness,” writes Paul Krugman in the New York Times, “not to see the parallels between the rise of fascism and our current political nightmare.” And time is running short. Journalist Chris Hedges says “a last chance for resistance” is already at hand.
In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted, especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance—namely, what values define us?—sits another question of comparable importance: “What principles define America’s role in the world?”
That second term, now creeping into the vocabulary of foreign-policy specialists, is liberal, often used interchangeably with the phrase rules-based and accompanied by additional modifiers such as open, international, and normative. All of these serve as synonyms for enlightened and good.
So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the “twilight of the liberal world order,” worries about the passing of “the open international economic system the United States created and helped sustain.” Donald Trump’s misguided emphasis on “America First,” Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in “attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international system” or in “preserving an open economic order.”
Commenting on Trump’s Inaugural Address, Nicole Gaouette, CNN national-security reporter, expresses her dismay that it contained “no reference to America’s traditional role as a global leader and shaper of international norms.” Similarly, a report in the Financial Times bemoans what it sees as “a clear signal about Mr. Trump’s disregard for many of the international norms that have governed America as the pillar of the liberal economic order.” The historian Jeremi Suri, barely a week into Trump’s presidency, charges Trump with “launching a direct attack on the liberal international order that really made America great after the depths of the Great Depression.” At the Council on Foreign Relations, Stewart Patrick concurs: Trump’s election, he writes, “imperils the liberal international order that America has championed since World War II.” Thomas Wright, another Brookings scholar, piles on: Trump “wants to undo the liberal international order the United States built and replace it with a 19th-century model of nationalism and mercantilism.”
In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump’s strategic vision “diverges significantly from—and intentionally subverts—the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S. foreign policy since World War II.” Failing to “subscribe to the long-held belief that ‘American exceptionalism’ and U.S. leadership are intertwined,” Trump is hostile to the “open, rule-based international economy” that his predecessors nurtured and sustained.
Need more? Let Gen. David Petraeus have the last word: “To keep the peace,” the soldier-turned-investment-banker writes in an essay entitled “America Must Stand Tall,” the United States has established “a system of global alliances and security commitments,” thereby nurturing “an open, free and rules-based international economic order.” To discard this legacy, he suggests, would be catastrophic.
You get the drift. Liberalism, along with norms, rules, openness, and internationalism: these ostensibly define the postwar and post-Cold War tradition of American statecraft. Allow Trump to scrap that tradition and you can say farewell to what Stewart Patrick refers to as “the global community under the rule of law” that the United States has upheld for decades.
But what does this heartwarming perspective exclude? We can answer that question with a single word: history.
Or, somewhat more expansively, among the items failing to qualify for mention in the liberal internationalist, rules-based version of past U.S. policy are the following: meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran, Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere—many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; “extraordinary rendition,” torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process.
Granted, for each of these, there was a rationale, rooted in a set of identifiable assumptions, ambitions, and fears. The CIA did not conspire with Britain’s MI6 in 1953 to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected president just for the hell of it. It did so because shelving Mohammad Mosaddegh seemingly offered the prospect of eliminating an annoying problem. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson did not commit U.S. combat troops to South Vietnam because he was keen to fight a major ground war in Asia but because the consequences of simply allowing events to take their course looked to be even worse. After 9/11, when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the “enhanced interrogation” of those held in secret prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate.
Yet collectively, the actions and episodes enumerated above do not suggest a nation committed to liberalism, openness, or the rule of law. What they reveal instead is a pattern of behavior common to all great powers in just about any era: following the rules when it serves their interest to do so; disregarding the rules whenever they become an impediment. Some regimes are nastier than others, but all are law-abiding when the law works to their benefit and not one day longer. Even Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s USSR punctiliously observed the terms of their non-aggression pact as long as it suited both parties to do so.
My point is not to charge à la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as “liberal internationalism” is akin to describing the business of Hollywood as “artistic excellence.”
“Invocations of the ‘rules-based international order,’” Politico’s Susan Glasser rightly observes, “had never before caused such teary-eyed nostalgia.” Whence comes this sudden nostalgia for something that never actually existed? The answer is self-evident: it’s a response to Donald Trump.
Prior to Trump’s arrival on the scene, few members of the foreign-policy elite, now apparently smitten with norms, fancied that the United States was engaged in creating any such order. America’s purpose was not to promulgate rules but to police an informal empire that during the Cold War encompassed the “Free World” and became more expansive still once the Cold War ended. The pre-Trump Kagan, writing in 2012, neatly summarizes that view:
The existence of the American hegemon has forced all other powers to exercise unusual restraint, curb normal ambitions, and avoid actions that might lead to the formation of a U.S.-led coalition of the kind that defeated Germany twice, Japan once, and the Soviet Union, more peacefully, in the Cold War.
Leave aside the dubious assertions and half-truths contained within that sentence and focus on its central claim: the United States as a hegemon that forces other nations to bend to its will. Strip away the blather about rules and norms and here you come to the essence of what troubles Kagan and others who purport to worry about the passing of “liberal internationalism.” Their concern is not that Trump won’t show adequate respect for rules and norms. What has them all in a lather is that he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony.
More fundamentally, Trump’s conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment’s narrative of 20th-century history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts, evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century.
Trump doesn’t see it that way, as his appropriation of the historically loaded phrase “America First” attests. In his view, what might have occurred had the United States not waged war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and had it not subsequently confronted the Soviet Union matters less than what did occur when the assertion of hegemonic prerogatives found the United States invading Iraq in 2003 with disastrous results.
In effect, Trump dismisses the lessons of the 20th century as irrelevant to the 21st. Crucially, he goes a step further by questioning the moral basis for past U.S. actions. Thus, his extraordinary response to a TV host’s charge that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a killer. “There are a lot of killers,” Trump retorted. “We’ve got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?” In offering this one brief remark, Trump thereby committed the ultimate heresy. Of course, no serious person believes that the United States is literally innocent. What members of the foreign-policy establishment—including past commanders-in-chief—have insisted is that the United States act as if it were innocent, with prior sins expunged and America’s slate wiped clean. This describes the ultimate U.S. perquisite and explains why, in the eyes of Robert Kagan et al., Russian actions in Crimea, Ukraine, or Syria count for so much while American actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya count for so little.
The desperate exercise in historical revisionism that now credits the United States with having sought all along to create a global community under the rule of law represents that establishment’s response to the heresies Trump has been spouting (and tweeting) since his famous ride down the escalator at Trump Tower.
Yet in reclassifying yesterday’s hegemon as today’s promulgator and respecter of norms, members of that establishment perpetrate a fraud. Whether Americans, notably gullible when it comes to history, will fall for this charade remains to be seen. Thus far at least, Trump himself, who probably knows a thing or two about snake-oil salesmen, shows little inclination to take the bait.
Say this for the anti-Trump resistance: while the fascism-just-around-the-corner rhetoric may be overheated and a touch overwrought, it qualifies as forthright and heartfelt. While not sharing the view that Trump will rob Americans of their freedoms, I neither question the sincerity nor doubt the passion of those who believe otherwise. Indeed, I am grateful to them for acting so forcefully on their convictions. They are inspiring.
Not so with those who now wring their hands about the passing of the fictive liberal international order credited to enlightened American statecraft. They are engaged in a great scam, working assiduously to sustain the pretense that the world of 2017 remains essentially what it was in 1937 or 1947 or 1957 when it is not.
Today’s Russia is not a reincarnation of the Soviet Union; the People’s Republic of China is not Imperial Japan; and the Islamic State in no way compares to Nazi Germany. Most of all, United States in the era of Donald Trump is not the nation that elected Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower, not least of all in the greatly reduced willingness of Americans to serve as instruments of state power, as the failed post-9/11 assertions of hegemony have demonstrated.
The world has changed in fundamental ways. So too has the United States. Those changes require that the principles guiding U.S. policy also change accordingly.
However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has seemingly intuited the need for such change. In this regard, if in none other, I’m with the Donald
But note the irony. Trump may come closer to full-fledged historical illiteracy than any president since Warren G. Harding. Small wonder then that his rejection of the mythic past long employed to preempt serious debate regarding U.S. policy gives fits to the perpetrators of those myths.
Andrew J. Bacevich is TAC’s writer-at-large.
Au moment d’écrire, vendredi 5 Main, tout est possible, et rien n’est perdu. Un sursaut populaire, un élan de fierté nationale et d’opposition à la gangrène néo-libérale qui ruîne la France depuis trente ans, peut rendre possible l’élection de Marine Le Pen. Le débat du 3 Mai a mise en évidence la vacuité du projet Macron, qui n’est que la continuation, en pire et à l’appui de décrets présidentiels, des politiques des sieurs Hollande et Sarcosy: on prend les mêmes et on recommence! Il faudrait pour cela, non seulement que la totalité des électeurs Gaullistes (les vrais), mais aussi qu’une bonne partie des électeurs de Monsieur Mélenchon, au premier tour, reportent leurs voix pour Marine. Tout est possible, encore, et il y a de bonnes raisons pour cette vraie gauche du coeur de choisir la France et le combat, et d’interdire l’accès au pouvoir suprême d’un représentant directe des oligarchies.
Contre la Nation, nous voyons massés les rangs des politiciens véreux, des media vendues, de la toute puissante maison de Rothchild et de ses alliés: la mafia internationale des néo-conservateurs et soit-disant libéraux, des socialistes pourris, et des champions du monde finissant et guerroyant, Obama-Clinton et Merkel. Ces gens là ont investi des moyens énormes, pour contrôler pratiquement toute la presse et télévision française et d’ailleurs, pour lever les troupes de choc qui attaquent l’opposition nationale, ses leaders et ses permanences, ainsi que la police, pour manipuler l’opinion, pour construire cet énormité: un personnage creux, sans âme et sans conviction, si ce n’est l’obéissance à ses maîtres: le Golem des oligarchies.
Verrons nous ici, en France, la vérité et la foi dans la Patrie triompher de ces crapules? Les sondages, quelle surprise! disent non. Les sondages aussi, ont une opinion! Mais la France de 2017 est-elle comparable aux USA de l’élection de Donald Trump? Est-elle même comparable au Royaume Uni de Brexit? Bien sûr tous les pays sont différents. Mais il y a le cas de malheur: celui où la France se laisserait pièger, comme l’Ècosse du référendum de l’indépendence de 2015. Là comme peut-être ici, la combinaison honteuse de politiciens vendus aux intérêts du capital et d’une presse corrompue, ont réussi à faire capoter le projet national.
Ce désastre est possible, et en votant dimanche, nous n’allons pas oublier d’être prêts, prêts à la Résistance. Dans tous les cas, un grand nombre de Français auront exprimé leur opposition au parti du passé et des politiques éculées, à l’immigration massive, à la destruction de l’économie nationale, à l’asservissement aux oligarchies apatrides sous couvert d’une Union Européenne détournée de sa mission; il faudra alors faire face à cette nécessité: reconstruire un grand parti nationaliste et progressif, retournant aux sources de la grandeur de la France, un parti de combat!
Le 7 Mai, au Nom du Peuple: aux urnes!
Image: La bataille de Taillebourg, gravure colorisée tirée d’une Histoire de l’armée française de Paul Lehugeur, 1880. Par Paul Lehugeur — http://www.alex-bernardini.fr/histoire/Louis-IX-dit-Saint-Louis.php, Domaine public, Lien
Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, Austin Scott Introduce Legislation to End Illegal U.S. War to Overthrow Syrian Government of Assad
- November 19, 2015
Washington, DC—Today, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA), both members of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced H.R. 4108, a bipartisan bill to end U.S. efforts to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic led by President Bashar al-Assad.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a twice-deployed combat veteran, said the intent of the bill is to “Bring an immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.”
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard explained,“The U.S. is waging two wars in Syria. The first is the war against ISIS and other Islamic extremists, which Congress authorized after the terrorist attack on 9/11. The second war is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.
“The war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria—which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world. Also, the war to overthrow Assad is illegal because Congress never authorized it.”
Congressman Austin Scott said, “Our primary mission should be the war against ISIS, al Qaeda, and radical Islamic extremists that have operations both inside and outside of Syria and Iraq. Those groups have carried out attacks on American allies, and are currently threatening attacks on our homeland. This represents a clear and present danger to our citizens, and I support eliminating these radical Islamic terrorists through any means necessary. Working to remove Assad at this stage is counter-productive to what I believe our primary mission should be.”
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “Here are 10 reasons the U.S. must end its war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad:
1. Because if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad, it will open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists to take over all of Syria. There will be genocide and suffering on a scale beyond our imagination. These Islamic extremists will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before.
2. Because overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad is the goal of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremist groups. We should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic extremists by helping them achieve their goal because it is against the security interests of the United States and all of civilization.
3. Because the money and weapons the CIA is providing to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad are going directly or indirectly into the hands of the Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who are the actual enemies of the United States. These groups make up close to 90 percent of the so-called opposition forces, and are the most dominant fighters on the ground.
4. Because our efforts to overthrow Assad have increased and will continue to increase the strength of ISIS and other Islamic extremists, thus making them a bigger regional and global threat.
5. Because this war has exacerbated the chaos and carnage in Syria and, along with the terror inflicted by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups fighting to take over Syria, continues to increase the number of Syrians forced to flee their country.
6. Because we should learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and Libya that U.S. wars to overthrow secular dictators (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi) cause even more chaos and human suffering and open the door for Islamic extremists to take over in those countries.
7. Because the U.S. has no credible government or government leader ready to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria.
8. Because even the ‘best case’ scenario—that the U.S. successfully overthrows the Syrian government of Assad—would obligate the United States to spend trillions of dollars and the lives of American service members in the futile effort to create a new Syria. This is what we have been trying to do in Iraq for twelve years, and we still have not succeeded. The situation in Syria will be much more difficult than in Iraq.
9. Because our war against the Syrian government of Assad is interfering with our being one-pointedly focused on the war to defeat ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the other Islamic extremists who are our actual enemy.
10. Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in direct conflict with Russia and increases the likelihood of war between the United States and Russia and the possibility of another world war.”
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances. If we are serious about defeating ISIS and solving the refugee problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, France, and anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated Islamic extremist organizations worldwide.
“The problem is, because the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is impossible for us to have an effective, cooperative relationship with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy ISIS.”
“We must immediately end the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and ally ourselves with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization,” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard concluded.
- House Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
- Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
- House Committee on Armed Services
- Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces
- Subcommittee on Readiness
- Congressional Future Caucus (Founder and co-chair)
- Congressional Post 9/11 Veterans Caucus (Founder and co-chair)
- Diversifying Technology Caucus (Founder and co-chair)
- Congressional Veterans Jobs Caucus
- Bipartisan Veterans Caucus
- National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus
- Congressional STEAM Caucus (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math)
- Small Business Caucus
- Congressional India Caucus
- Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
Photo: The Temple of Bel in Palmyra, which was destroyed by ISIL in August 2015, – Own work
HD – Guten Morgen Herr Doktor, and thank you again for agreeing to meet me for this interview. We know that you are at the moment extremely busy.
JG – Good morning Honoré. I like your use of “we”: do you mean you and your Jewish/American friends, or is it now the “royal We”?
HD – Nothing of the sort, I can assure you, merely a reference to friends who are interested in European politics as well. If I may, I will start with some preliminary questions.
JG – Ha ha… Be my guest, I will answer all intelligent questions!
HD – It has been now some years since your last interview in English (I recall it was with the magazine “Prospect”.) Since then tremendous events have shaken our world: the financial maelstrom of 2008, the wars in the Middle East, the war in the Ukraine. I would like to know your views on these developments, including the rise of the extreme right in Europe.
JG – Mm… I am a bit confused about what you and your estimated colleagues describe as the “far right”. From the perspective of someone of my age – and remember someone the Führer tasked explicitly to remove the bolsheviks from Berlin! – there is no national-revolutionary movement in Europe at present. There might be a slow and hesitant response of some sections of the people to the appalling situation created for workers the world over by Judeo-Capitalism, not a new story. We ourselves succeeded in our enterprise – after much work and sacrifices – because precisely of the mess caused by your masters after WWI. But I probably don’t need to remind you.
HD – Perhaps we could start with this then: what, in your view, is the root case of the crisis we are living through, particularly since the beginning of the banking crisis in the US.
JG – It has all been written long ago. Re-read Mein Kampf, or, even, authors on your side of the fence: there are some worthy lessons in Karl Polanyi, for example. By the late 60’s, Judeo Capitalism decided that enough was enough, they no longer needed gloves to exploit the people. The lessons of the 30’s, the long war, all was now forgotten, buried under the consumerism they had successfully promoted since the war. Within two decades the US and the UK deindustrialised, shipping workers jobs to Asia and other slave colonies. They evidently had prepared their plan carefully. Credit replaced decent wages: the bubble grew. The hyperfinancialisation that followed could only end up in disaster. Your mentor Mr Giovanni Arrighi explained all this superbly! So now the entire building is shaken to its foundation. Moreover the Eurasian continent is moving…
HD – Before we come to that, I must say I am very surprised to hear you quote Polanyi and Arrighi, Herr Doktor!
JG – You should not be. We, National-Socialists, have always known how to borrow from our enemies. In this case I don’t even see either of them as “enemies”. Simply they did not draw the end conclusions of their own analysis. For example, Arrighi could have drawn some useful insights from the demise of the British Empire, not just in terms of world-system, but indeed in terms of the ultimate failure of what you and your friends call “globalisation”.
HD – Very interesting… Coming to the Middle-East, what is your analysis of what has been happening since 2001?
JG – There are two root causes, that are closely intertwined. In one sentence: Israel, and the unsolvable Palestine issue, and the “Neo-Cons”, again to borrow your vocabulary. The Neo-Cons are an extension of the Israel lobby in the US. Iraq, Libya, Syria, all are pieces on the board the Jewish state’s game. I am not teaching you anything there. What is, perhaps, relative news to you (but not to us), is the (now) evident collusion of so-called traditional Arab countries, chiefly Saudi-Arabia, and Israel . But, remember, your friend Mr Roosevelt stopped in Ryad on his way back from Yalta – for a reason! So, what we had, in sequence, a provocation (the two towers), a mock, intractable conflict (Afghanistan), and then the beginning of the onslaught, Iraq. The chaos in Iraq was, for all intelligent observers, including ourselves, unavoidable, and deliberate. Saudi money and jewish expertise flowed in, to arm and train the so-called jihadists, and demolish whatever was left of nationhood in the region. The pooddle governments of France and the UK followed suite in Libya. It’s all very clear. The thinking was that no-one in the world could do anything about it.
HD – Until Syria… What do you think made the Russian Federation act?
JG – We have followed these events with great interest. You see, something your American friends still have not realised, is that Russia has got rid of bolshevism! Russia is reasserting itself, developing a web of alliances with those countries that will count in this and the next century. Russia was in no position to oppose the war to Iraq. Furthermore Mr Hussein was a US agent. But 2014 is not 2003: Mr Putin and his government have done some good work. Look at the statistics that matter: birth rate, industrial production, growth of the arm industry. There is no longer any reason for the US to continue pretending they are the one superpower! And then there is a simple fact, that we knew already when we planned Barbarossa: only the Eurasian landmass will survive absolute war.
HD – You mean nuclear war?
JG – Absolute war, generally, a nuclear engagement would not last very long. What matters is what would follow. We lost the war because Germany was too small. Just think of the combination of Russia and China, and a few allies. So, the bottom line is, that the US State Department and the Pentagon may rage and puff, but Syria is not Libya. From our viewpoint, the US Judeo-Capitalist nexus is on its way out. It will take time, and we are sure a lot more victims around the world. But time is against them. You reminded me of that interview with Prospect, I said it at the time: when we are back there won’t be a Soviet Union to save your bacon! Literally, there ain’t!
HD – Are you saying you are back?
JG – Not yet, but we will. And don’t mention to me those jerks in Kiev! We never trusted those guys, even when we were there in strength, liars and cowards, thugs, not soldiers! The Donbas and Crimea are different. We haven’t forgotten what it cost us to take Sevastopol!
HD – So what is next for the Ukraine?
JG – More misery in the short term. Although part of the US establishment wishes to disengage from the NATO fiasco – and let the German government get on with it – I doubt that Mr Trump will succeed in his bid. So we’ll have another four or even eight years of neocon nonsense. The situation in Eastern Ukraine will get worse, and at some point Russia may well intervene, not softly, but massively. They will show those clowns who really has control. But I may be wrong, there maybe some compromise. I know that our current government does not wish war! Just think about that: who really does?
HD – Hopefully no-one. I thank you again for your time Herr Doktor.
JG – My pleasure. I hope you are enjoying your stay in Berlin!
Photography: Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1968-101-20A, Joseph Goebbels Heinrich Hoffmann / CC-BY-SA 3.0
The Syrian war is not what it seems – not a fuzzy religious or civil war-saga – but a milestone in the long line of wars waged by the global cartel against those countries who are unwilling to surrender to the NWO-coercion in any other way. To achieve the goal that eventually all national Governments surrender to the diktats of the global cartel by adoping the NWO-compliant Orwellian social-economic and political policy, the cartel deploys the following “recipe”.
The truth about the Middle East wars (versus the media-myths)
By entering the Syrian war-scenes, with resounding success against ISIS, Russia gave a check-mate to the global cartel and delivered a spectacular blow to the misleading mainstream narrative. Since then each move and utterance by the US reveals more of the lies about NATO’s “humanitarian role” and “war on terror”, while the truth about the actual reasons for the never-ending wars in…
View original post 1,306 more words
Have you heard anything about Ukraine, by any chance?